"Benj" <bjac... at (no spam) iwaynet.net> wrote in message

OK. Let me pick your brains. I'm working on the age-old question does
a magnetic field rotate with the magnet if you spin it. ....

The following link is not on this subject, however, I do believe it relates
well to the overall question, and some others posted over the last couple of
months.

Is there really a "motional E field", and is it closely related to gravity?
A non shieldable field that resembles gravity to such an extent that it is
basically indistinguishable from it? If so, then Floyd Sweets VTA, or
Searle's device may well be the real deal.http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/hpmoncrt.htm

Some things in the crankarama can at times be very interesting.

Magn�ts are not Fermi-Dirac condensva; each domain must break down at
the atom which fluctvently impels as a cog.  With the wire's
h�steresis, the inducted currend would be speed-dependent.

I don't think this is quite right, Aut.  I mean it might be speed-
dependent, but the fact that a superconductor can support a magnet
shows that the response extends down to DC! (or very close to it).

Currently I am thinking that as the magnetic field moves over a
superconductor it induces an equal and opposite field from
superconducting circulations in the material. This means that the
canceling field is attached to the superconducting material and is NOT
moving along with the inducing field.  Therefore, in my little

On May 12, 8:43 am, "Kevin G. Rhoads" <kgrho... at (no spam) alum.mit.edu> wrote:

 If we ever build a Beanstalk (tethered mass in geosynchronous
equatorial orbit) will the stalk carry a current from "cutting" the
Earth's field as it orbits?

If conductive, perhaps -- remember B fields, like motion, are expressed
in vectors, so the cross product can be zero even if both terms are not
(they only need be parallel).

  It was a "trick" question. The Earth's field is generated somewhat
differently from that of an ordinary magnet; the angular velocity of
the conductive fluid within the Earth that generates its field is not
directly tied to the angular velocity of the surface (note that the
spin and magnetic poles of the Earth are not co-located and their
relationship changes over time).

  So yes, a (conductive) Beanstalk will definitely carry a current.

of "Is the magnetic field attached to the source that generates it?
This is of course identical to or nearly identical to the question I
was asking about does a magnetic field rotate with the magnet?
Hooper's experiments then led him to develop the "All-electric
Motional Field Generator". This device is a bundle of wires arranged
in a totally non-inductive fashion (current flowing in as many wires
"up" as flows in the wires "down").  The device purportedly develops a
potential outside of it due to the assumption that the magnetic field
is more or less attached to the electrons and moved on the average at
the "drift velocity" of those electrons.  If you think about this ( I
know that is a strain in the modern world but it actually still IS
possible!), you'll see that because of directions and polarities a
potential should happen.

But, then Hooper made a large leap into crankosity (one which, by the
way, I DO NOT agree with) that noticing that both the VxB force and
gravity are non-shieldable and also since there is charge separation

And let me add a minor comment to Timo's exposition on relativity
relationships between frames and E and B fields. That would simply be
that I do not believe this theory to be correct because I do not
believe that E fields and B (or H) fields are at the fundamental level
similar enough in their formation to allow the mathematical transform
of one to the other based on reference frames and relative motion.

Which suggests an interesting exercise: what electric field should we
observe due to the Earth's magnetic field and rotation? Is this a
significant component of typical atmospheric electric fields?

If I have time, I'll do the numbers.

of "Is the magnetic field attached to the source that generates it?
This is of course identical to or nearly identical to the question I
was asking about does a magnetic field rotate with the magnet?
Hooper's experiments then led him to develop the "All-electric
Motional Field Generator". This device is a bundle of wires arranged
in a totally non-inductive fashion (current flowing in as many wires
"up" as flows in the wires "down"). The device purportedly develops a
potential outside of it due to the assumption that the magnetic field
is more or less attached to the electrons and moved on the average at
the "drift velocity" of those electrons. If you think about this ( I
know that is a strain in the modern world but it actually still IS
possible!), you'll see that because of directions and polarities a
potential should happen.

But, then Hooper made a large leap into crankosity (one which, by the
way, I DO NOT agree with) that noticing that both the VxB force and
gravity are non-shieldable and also since there is charge separation

And let me add a minor comment to Timo's exposition on relativity
relationships between frames and E and B fields. That would simply be
that I do not believe this theory to be correct because I do not
believe that E fields and B (or H) fields are at the fundamental level
similar enough in their formation to allow the mathematical transform
of one to the other based on reference frames and relative motion.

A bar magnet has only one propagation. That is an electrical field which is
tangential to the length of the bar
magnet. It is either a clockwise or counterclockwise field (electrical
field) as viewed by something else. When two bar magnets experience this
electrical field having the circular pattern, force appears to be
effected.
Construed as a magnetic force or magnetic field, after all what you see is
what you get in this wysiwyg world of physics. The magnet field is a true
illusion because it does not span the gap between the magnets. only the
circular electrical field spans the gap. the exhibited force is locally
achieved as the re-direction of inertia of the individual magnets
accomodate
their newly distorted dynamic electrical field having been distorted by
the
other magnet. Test: hold a bar magnet close to a crt face to observe the
effect the tangential electrical field has on a moving charge. Ampere
taught
us this, nobody listens. Lee Pugh

miltonpugh at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote
news:DkL0k.4177$jI5.3039 at (no spam) flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
A bar magnet has only one propagation. That is an electrical field which is
tangential to the length of the bar
magnet. It is either a clockwise or counterclockwise field (electrical
field) as viewed by something else. When two bar magnets experience this
electrical field having the circular pattern, force appears to be
effected.
Construed as a magnetic force or magnetic field, after all what you see is
what you get in this wysiwyg world of physics. The magnet field is a true
illusion because it does not span the gap between the magnets. only the
circular electrical field spans the gap. the exhibited force is locally
achieved as the re-direction of inertia of the individual magnets
accomodate
their newly distorted dynamic electrical field having been distorted by
the
other magnet. Test: hold a bar magnet close to a crt face to observe the
effect the tangential electrical field has on a moving charge. Ampere
taught
us this, nobody listens. Lee Pugh

Ampere taught that who are fluent in French. I am not. But I am very
interested on such idea. I am sure that the fields OF "mass", charge and
magnet must be the same because the space is one. Of course grvitational,
electric and magnetic field can be different because they are math.
I have known that Aepinus found the theory that gravitational and
electrostatic forces are the same. Many people discuss that. But I could not
find more than you wrote here about Ampere idea. Could you tell where can I
read more? ( I am a science hobbyst).
S*

Hello, and the very first thing you need to do IMHO is distinguish science
from pseudoscience or misinterpretations of cause and effect as
illustrated by the above posts. A "theory" (e.g. electromagnetic theory)
in science is something that has been established by repeatable
experiment, produces predictable results and usually is firmly rooted in
applied mathematics.

Anything else is an "hypothesis" (e.g. cold
fusion). Since you have science as a hobby this makes it more difficult
if you don't have some field of science or applied mathematics as a
profession. As an EE by profession and referring to the postings above,
may I suggest an introductory course in electromagnetics? You didn't say
your age but I'm talking about a course at the freshman/sophomore college
level. It probabably will be somewhat rough going mathematically but you
might absorb some basics. Sincerely,

In article <g23t7q$7s8$1 at (no spam) node1.news.atman.pl>, "Szczepan Bia³ek"
sz.bialek at (no spam) wp.pl> wrote:

miltonpugh at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote
news:DkL0k.4177$jI5.3039 at (no spam) flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
A bar magnet has only one propagation. That is an electrical field
which is
tangential to the length of the bar
magnet. It is either a clockwise or counterclockwise field (electrical
field) as viewed by something else. When two bar magnets experience
this
electrical field having the circular pattern, force appears to be
effected.
Construed as a magnetic force or magnetic field, after all what you
see is
what you get in this wysiwyg world of physics. The magnet field is a
true
illusion because it does not span the gap between the magnets. only
the
circular electrical field spans the gap. the exhibited force is
locally
achieved as the re-direction of inertia of the individual magnets
accomodate
their newly distorted dynamic electrical field having been distorted
by
the
other magnet. Test: hold a bar magnet close to a crt face to observe
the
effect the tangential electrical field has on a moving charge. Ampere
taught
us this, nobody listens. Lee Pugh

Ampere taught that who are fluent in French. I am not. But I am very
interested on such idea. I am sure that the fields OF "mass", charge and
magnet must be the same because the space is one. Of course
grvitational,
electric and magnetic field can be different because they are math.
I have known that Aepinus found the theory that gravitational and
electrostatic forces are the same. Many people discuss that. But I could
not
find more than you wrote here about Ampere idea. Could you tell where
can I
read more? ( I am a science hobbyst).
S*

Hello, and the very first thing you need to do IMHO is distinguish science
from pseudoscience or misinterpretations of cause and effect as
illustrated by the above posts. A "theory" (e.g. electromagnetic theory)
in science is something that has been established by repeatable
experiment, produces predictable results and usually is firmly rooted in
applied mathematics. Anything else is an "hypothesis" (e.g. cold
fusion). Since you have science as a hobby this makes it more difficult
if you don't have some field of science or applied mathematics as a
profession. As an EE by profession and referring to the postings above,
may I suggest an introductory course in electromagnetics? You didn't say
your age but I'm talking about a course at the freshman/sophomore college
level. It probabably will be somewhat rough going mathematically but you
might absorb some basics. Sincerely,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wood at (no spam) itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

Hello, and the very first thing you need to do IMHO is distinguish science
from pseudoscience or misinterpretations of cause and effect as
illustrated by the above posts.  

A "theory" (e.g. electromagnetic theory)
in science is something that has been established by repeatable
experiment, produces predictable results and usually is firmly rooted in
applied mathematics.  

Anything else is an "hypothesis" (e.g. cold
fusion).  Since you have science as a hobby this makes it more difficult
if you don't have some field of science or applied mathematics as a
profession.  

As an EE by profession and referring to the postings above,
may I suggest an introductory course in electromagnetics?  You didn't say
your age but I'm talking about a course at the freshman/sophomore college
level.  It probabably will be somewhat rough going mathematically but you
might absorb some basics.  Sincerely,

Hello, and the very first thing you need to do IMHO is distinguish science
from pseudoscience or misinterpretations of cause and effect as
illustrated by the above posts.

A "theory" (e.g. electromagnetic theory)
in science is something that has been established by repeatable
experiment, produces predictable results and usually is firmly rooted in
applied mathematics.

Anything else is an "hypothesis" (e.g. cold
fusion). Since you have science as a hobby this makes it more difficult
if you don't have some field of science or applied mathematics as a
profession.

As an EE by profession and referring to the postings above,
may I suggest an introductory course in electromagnetics? You didn't say
your age but I'm talking about a course at the freshman/sophomore college
level. It probabably will be somewhat rough going mathematically but you
might absorb some basics. Sincerely,

In article <g23t7q$7s8$1 at (no spam) node1.news.atman.pl>, "Szczepan Bia³ek"
sz.bialek at (no spam) wp.pl> wrote:

miltonpugh at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote
news:DkL0k.4177$jI5.3039 at (no spam) flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
A bar magnet has only one propagation. That is an electrical field
which is
tangential to the length of the bar
magnet. It is either a clockwise or counterclockwise field (electrical
field) as viewed by something else. When two bar magnets experience
this
electrical field having the circular pattern, force appears to be
effected.
Construed as a magnetic force or magnetic field, after all what you
see is
what you get in this wysiwyg world of physics. The magnet field is a
true
illusion because it does not span the gap between the magnets. only
the
circular electrical field spans the gap. the exhibited force is
locally
achieved as the re-direction of inertia of the individual magnets
accomodate
their newly distorted dynamic electrical field having been distorted
by
the
other magnet. Test: hold a bar magnet close to a crt face to observe
the
effect the tangential electrical field has on a moving charge. Ampere
taught
us this, nobody listens. Lee Pugh

Ampere taught that who are fluent in French. I am not. But I am very
interested on such idea. I am sure that the fields OF "mass", charge and
magnet must be the same because the space is one. Of course
grvitational,
electric and magnetic field can be different because they are math.
I have known that Aepinus found the theory that gravitational and
electrostatic forces are the same. Many people discuss that. But I could
not
find more than you wrote here about Ampere idea. Could you tell where
can I
read more? ( I am a science hobbyst).
S*

Hello, and the very first thing you need to do IMHO is distinguish science
from pseudoscience or misinterpretations of cause and effect as
illustrated by the above posts. A "theory" (e.g. electromagnetic theory)
in science is something that has been established by repeatable
experiment, produces predictable results and usually is firmly rooted in
applied mathematics. Anything else is an "hypothesis" (e.g. cold
fusion). Since you have science as a hobby this makes it more difficult
if you don't have some field of science or applied mathematics as a
profession. As an EE by profession and referring to the postings above,
may I suggest an introductory course in electromagnetics? You didn't say
your age but I'm talking about a course at the freshman/sophomore college
level. It probabably will be somewhat rough going mathematically but you
might absorb some basics. Sincerely,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wood at (no spam) itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

In article <g23t7q$7s8$1 at (no spam) node1.news.atman.pl>, "Szczepan Bia³ek"
sz.bialek at (no spam) wp.pl> wrote: